Legal Opinion

Murray v. Calkins

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 20, 1932No. 28,859PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.

Plaintiffs appeal from an order striking out as sham general denials in the replies to .certain specific allegations in the separate answers of the respondent bank and of the other respondents, - and also appeal from the judgment entered on the pleadings as so purged of sham denials.

In regard to the order, it is enough to say that appellants made no attempt whatever to show that the replies in so far as the general denials therein met certain specified allegations in the answers were not sham. And no argument to the contrary has been made in this court. The sole question remaining is whether…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Hass v. BillingsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
  2. McElrath v. McElrathSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
  3. Stewart v. DuncanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
  4. O'Brien v. LarsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1898
  5. Moudry v. WitzkaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of JordanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1937
  2. Lenhart v. Lenhart Wagon Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
  3. Murray v. CalkinsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
  4. Bennett v. BennettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  5. Nichols v. Village of MorristownSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API